Wow, I had no idea that much hashrate was in the US now. A much better situation than when it was in China, IMO.
Even in China, it was individuals setting up mining rigs, not some giant government conspiracy to control all the hashrate.
Even in China, I don't think they can just declare eminent domain over someone's business, but they can certainly control who gets power generated for them.
On top of it, if you've ever run a large scale mining operation (and I've run several), it isn't easy. There is a lot of competence required to do it profitably.
Beijing can absolutely just seize a business. Disappearing leadership [1], installing Party Board members [2], promoting Party management members (a requirement for any business of consequence [3]) and simply taking assets are commonplace in China.
Eminent domain doesn’t really exist because the legal system is subservient to the Party [4]. If the CCP wants something, it takes it; it doesn’t need court permission.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/2f7c7a10-2df3-4f1b-8d2a-eea0e0548...
[2] https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/politics-in-the-boardroom-th...
[3] https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business...
[4] https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/04/28/walking-thin-ice/contr...
It is one thing to take it over and shut it down, but a whole another thing to keep it running. It isn't like the people running it will just suddenly want to work for a new (hostile) boss. Like I said before, this stuff isn't trivial to run. You don't just plug a box in and call it good.
Have you ever done business in China? Everyone already works for that boss.
The boss may not be as present yet, but they’re there, and refusing to follow a Party member’s orders is a criminal offense.
You're taking one talking point out of the conversation and then trying to apply that as a whole. The larger picture here is that what you are replying to isn't the point of what I'm talking about, but it sure makes you sound like you know what you're talking about though.
The fact is that the govt would likely never take over every single mining operation, when the lowest barrier is to simply ban it. That's exactly what happened.
They don't need Bitcoin, when they have their own infinite money printer. Even if they didn't ban it, and still took it all over, they wouldn't have enough hashrate to control the network (~40 < ~51). If they somehow invested even more funds into this massive operation to control more hashrate, what could they do? At most, reorg a few blocks and effectively destroy bitcoin. It would be a very expensive suicide, for what purpose?
Totally agree. I was contesting the narrow point of the government not being able to seize those operations. They could have. But they aren’t idiots, those rigs are strategically worthless because Bitcoin is strategically worthless.
It follows that a misnomer is a "bad name," usually stemming from a misunderstanding about an origin. E.g., a firefly isn't a fly, a peanut isn't a nut, a starfish isn't a fish, a shooting star isn't a star, etc.
The practice known as curtailment, is a way for miners to help electricity grids. The miners' steady demand ensures power producers are bringing in revenue to offset costs, but can power off when demand from other sources is high, such as during winter storms.
Show me empirical evidence what you described is actually happening on a large scale.
Small/medium mining operators just build in those cheapest locations.
The largest operations are turning towards purchasing or building their own capacity, some of which activity will still contribute to a supply/demand curve that raises prices for the entire country (or at least region). In some cases large mining companies have even recommissions old coal power plants, e.g., Marathon Digital Holdings w/ the Harding plant.
Some countries have different prices for residential areas vs businesses vs industry.
For residential areas they might do something like first 10 kWh = $0.01/kWh, next 20 kWh = $0.02/kWh, etc. This punishes people who use excessive amounts and helps keep electricity affordable for people living in poverty.
It's the US's fault for not implementing something like that (and I'm one of the people living in it).